In this case, the Plaintiffs Jonathan D Cobb, Sr and Walter Arlene St. Clair provide evidence of wire fraud on pages 32-33, where they state:

“The Defendants have utilized people with specific skills such as Mr. Bruce Radetich, who is an ex-police officer and now a security specialist who, it is believed has been employed in an effort to use illegal means to surreptitiously monitor phone calls in hopes of gaining information as to the possible direction the Plaintiff’s are heading with regard to legal matters. Certain personal cell phones of the Plaintiff’s as well as other parties closely associated with the Plaintiff’s appear as if they have been monitored by parties outside. One particular cell phone used by Jason Cobb was inspected by a cell phone specialist… where it was determined that the phone in question had been set up to allow a remote party to be able to intercept calls and monitor them. Milano the cell phone technician who worked on the cell phone in question has had nearly ten years of experience with various makes and models of phones and this party has agreed to testify about the state of the phone and the potential ramifications of what he discovered while working on Jason Cobb’s cell phone. The technician’s expert testimony can easily show intent and how far the Defendants, acting in consort with various confederates, are willing to go in an effort to try to conceal the true nature of this situation, not to mention clearly defining Wire Fraud issues.” (end of website reference)

In reading many of these types of accounts online, isn't it reasonable to conclude that these practices are not proprietary?

Although the logic of: "If this has happened there, it MUST be happening here" would arguably become the primary thought, specifics and evidence, at the very least, would be needed to confirm this.

However, given documented accounts from former members over the years referencing behavior from WOFF, as it pertains to today's subject, give the casual observer reasonable grounds to conclude that SOME kind of alleged monitoring might also be practiced? If these appear similar, then isn't it interesting given that WOFF is said to have it's own "Security Specialist"?

WW asks questions: Do you have internet and or cable service? Is your internet company associated (that is, does it have members who are in WOFF?).

But then, what else? Who else has access (that you know about) to your: Cell Phone (there's an app for monitoring those monitoring you), computer log files kept by your isp, computer history, registry, (learn how your computer works and keep things private), mail (do you have a PO box? If you do and are asked about it in WOFF, ISN'T THAT EVIDENCE?)

Ask yourself.

Since July 2011, WW has pleaded with residents of Rutherfordton County, former members, current members contemplating leaving WOFF, people at banks, government and law enforcement who are NOT members, to TELL SOMEONE, if they have seen or have evidence (documentation) of anything that could or would get the attention of FEDERAL law enforcement and or GOVERNMENT agencies.

Now, that said, WW has reason to believe that some people in this area are afraid that SOME local authorities might be colluding with WOFF, thus taking a chance by going to someone for help when it might backfire. This is understandable. The local authorities in California weren't associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses and justice took it's course. The infrastructure here seemingly makes this task more difficult. But only SEEMINGLY.

However, area attorneys NOT associated with WOFF, particularly those who have defended others AGAINST WOFF, are most likely to know the players, and they could be a source of information that might prove useful. WW would start with them. They ALSO might know someone higher up who might be able to help.

WW also knows that people have contacted Washington agencies only to get thrown back to NC or regional offices that MIGHT be associated with WOFF. This can be frustrating unless you decide that there is no end to this, and you must see it through.

Specifics, names, truth, evidence, documentation, dates, times, quotes, actions, are among the most important elements in making your case and presenting it.

In calling an agency or calling on an agency in person you can encounter obstacles from the very beginning This can be enough to make anyone want to quit.

But don't. Here's how you get around it.

WW's rule of customer service: If you get someone that can't help you, it's because they: don't care, just killing time for a paycheck, barely got by the training and most likely needs additional training, and (this is true) don't like you (they might be having a bad day).

So, call that place again (or if in person, ask for someone else or go another time). WW GUARANTEES that if you do this, you will get a different answer, and probably one that will be helpful. This works every time, particularly with government employees who are now overworked due to budget and staff cuts, while some have an entitlement complex (again true).

Get AROUND conventional ways of dealing with people for this purpose. This is an unconventional situation, so you should approach it unconventionally. Read WW's earlier blog on Guerrilla tactics and how to deal with people.